Still Another Comparative AV Review

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by profhsg, Aug 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. profhsg

    profhsg Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Posts:
    145
    The following link takes you to another comparative antivirus review. It is quite obvious that the reviewer did not have the most up to date software because among other things (a) he lists Bitdefender as not having heuristics (not true since 3/2005) and (b) reviews RAV antivirus without mentioning that it has been acquired by Microsoft and is no longer being sold as an independent product.

    So, take it FWIW.

    http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=5421
     
    profhsg, Aug 7, 2005
    #1
  2. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    389
    Funny too because he didn't even list Avast as well as a few other popular ones either.
     
    Atomic_Ed, Aug 7, 2005
    #2
  3. Cap'n Kirk

    Cap'n Kirk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Posts:
    15
    Location:
    Georgia
    F-Prot - "at testing the definitions had not been updated in a month." I have been using F-Prot for the last 6 months and this has never happened. Its not always every day, but the updates are pretty regular.
     
    Cap'n Kirk, Aug 7, 2005
    #3
  4. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    163,791
    Location:
    Texas
    Multiple times a day if needed.
     
    ronjor, Aug 7, 2005
    #4
  5. hbkh

    hbkh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    The so-called review seems biased toward NOD32 as Scott Brown is part of Colby-Sawyer College IT, which provides NOD32 free to their students
    http://www.colby-sawyer.edu/information/technology/updates/NOD32.html, so I'm not shocked NOD won. I not bashing NOD, I have a license myself, I just don't think it's impartial. Also, as already pointed out their are numerous errors within the article. Just my $.02. :)
     
    hbkh, Aug 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Whoever did this test was pretty much clueless about antivirus programs. [​IMG]


    tECHNODROME
     
    Technodrome, Aug 7, 2005
    #6
  7. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,537
    This review say that BitDefender and others doesn't have heuristics...

    It seems that he didn't know what it was saying...
     
    rdsu, Aug 8, 2005
    #7
  8. ---

    --- Guest

    Actually this was actually based on a study he did much earlier (Dec 2004?) in a more formal study. There's a link to it somewhere in this forum.

    For this new article, he just cut and paste from the earlier report.

    That explains why some details are out of date, despite the fact that the journal is current.
     
    ---, Aug 8, 2005
    #8
  9. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Still pretty lame for not including AntiVir,avast! and AVG...
     
    RejZoR, Aug 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York

    Attached Files:

    • avx.gif
      avx.gif
      File size:
      15.2 KB
      Views:
      484
    Technodrome, Aug 8, 2005
    #10
  11. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    What I don't want is everywhere and what I want is nowhere.
    The SUM of all these AV scanners in ONE single AV scanner, is what the user NEEDS.
    Keep on dreaming ErikAlbert.
     
    ErikAlbert, Aug 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Kye-U

    Kye-U Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Posts:
    481
    For F-Prot

    http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8952/fprot1lz.png
     
    Kye-U, Aug 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Chubb

    Chubb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,967
    Sophos AntiVirus is at 5.0.4 in July 2005 and 5.0.5 in August 2005, but 3.86.2 was used for review. The new 5.0 series was released in Feb 2005. I wonder why 3.86.2 was used for the review.
     
    Chubb, Aug 9, 2005
    #13
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...